Court paves way for revival of Pak Tea House

Pak Tea House was a place that used to be frequented by intellectuals, poets and writers.


Our Correspondent June 20, 2012
Court paves way for revival of Pak Tea House

LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday vacated a  stay order granted earlier to bar the Punjab government from reviving the Pak Tea House.

A bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ahmad and Justice Mamoon Rasheed Sheikh issued this order while dismissing an intra court appeal (ICA) filed against the single bench order.

A single bench comprising Justice Umar Ata Bandial had dismissed Zahid Hussain’s petition on February 16. The petitioner had filed an ICA against that order.

Justice Bandial, while dismissing the petition, had observed that the Pak Tea House was a place that was frequented by intellectuals, poets and writers, hence it could not be closed

The petitioner had requested the court to bar the Punjab government from reopening Pak Tea House at the property that was leased to his father in 1947, subsequently transferred to him after his father’s death.

Zahid pointed out that the Punjab government has announced a plan to reopen the Pak Tea House but the decision violates the law since the property in which the cafe had been originally housed was leased out to him. He submitted that directions must be issued to stop the government from reopening the Pak Tea House.

Additional advocate general appearing on behalf of the Punjab government submitted that the government has planned to revive the historic Pak Tea House in a bid to provide a platform to intellectuals.

He said that the government has already started renovation work, which had paused for the stay order by the court. He added that the forum provided healthy activity and should be encouraged.

The additional advocate general prayed the court to dismiss the petition for being based on mala fide intentions and baseless.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ